What are you, anyway? Tell me, and I'll try and remember, if I ever decide to address you except peripherally.

Quote:

Outrageously insulting and obviously intended to be. Definitely the last such post that doesn't get deleted so don't bother posting such things in future.

RF

Quote:

What should I have said to avoid offending the fragile sensibilities of NT?

You just can't help yourself can you RF? The, "fragile", sensibilities of NT? This is just a somewhat more polite way of saying what Donnie said viz: all ARs are, "sooks": and an imposition of your views as to what NT's sensibilities should be. This is just par for the course.

RF

Quote:

I don't recall NT remarking on his being offended at the use of "what".

Do you know anyone who wouldn't be offended at your question? It could of course, be innocuous, that's the art of polite denigration isn't it? But the context makes the meaning clear. In any case, seeing that the only response to NT's earlier requests to adopt an acceptable form of address were greeted with yet more abuse and denigration s/he probably didn't see much point in responding.

RF

Quote:

Of course, I don't recall him explaining just what gender of pronoun I should use in reference to avoid offending him, either.

The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender?

RF

Quote:

Shall we also refrain from referring to a cockroach as "it", since Arc will likely take personal offense?

Why should arc108 take personal offence RF? Are you calling arc a cockroach? This isso transparent. Of course, we have had, "night-crawler", so you are in good company.

NB: Arc108 objects to, "it", for animals and wants us to use gender specific pronouns in recognition of their (proposed) status as legal, "persons". It has nothing to do with anything personal to arc - as I am sure you know.

You just can't help yourself can you RF? The, "fragile", sensibilities of NT? This is just a somewhat more polite way of saying what Donnie said viz: all ARs are, "sooks": and an imposition of your views as to what NT's sensibilities should be. This is just par for the course.

I don't even know what a "sook" is. And I used "fragile" as a description, and I believe it is accurate. I understand it is subjective. Just as subjective as "somewhat more polite". Still, one would think you would view "somewhat more polite" as a step in the right direction, instead of an opportunity to berate me. You just can't help yourself can you RF? Is this meant to imply that I suffer from a personality disorder? If so, I find it offensive.

Quote:

Do you know anyone who wouldn't be offended at your question? It could of course, be innocuous, that's the art of polite denigration isn't it? But the context makes the meaning clear. In any case, seeing that the only response to NT's earlier requests to adopt an acceptable form of address were greeted with yet more abuse and denigration s/he probably didn't see much point in responding.

I didn't denigrate NT's earlier requests. I admitted to the snarky quotient of my post...but it certainly didn't include the use of "what". I wouldn't take offense at such a comment from an anonymous poster on a board...especially if I had already expended considerable bandwidth collectively and categorically denouncing that person.

BTW...I take offense at your use of the word "denigrate". There was quite a flap awhile back here in the states that the term is offensive to black people. I have decided to agree with those that maintained that.

Quote:

The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender?

I would rather use the equally valid "convention" to use the masculine pronoun when in doubt. After all, it was a convention for a lot longer, and so has the greater claim to actually being a convention.

Besides...his gender ISN'T in doubt. You should read more closely. You seem to be making the error Phantomuk made when referring to NT as "her"...righteously moving in judgement and betraying a lack of knowing the specifics. Whilst going on about assumptions.

Quote:

Why should arc108 take personal offence RF? Are you calling arc a cockroach? This isso transparent. Of course, we have had, "night-crawler", so you are in good company.

NB: Arc108 objects to, "it", for animals and wants us to use gender specific pronouns in recognition of their (proposed) status as legal, "persons". It has nothing to do with anything personal to arc - as I am sure you know.

It appears that Arc takes personal offense at animals being referred to as "it". He is one with animals and all that...how could he NOT? He is an instrument of God in looking out for the creatures, for Chrissake...how could a status so lofty not be personal?

Still, if Arc doesn't take the plight of animals personally, he can correct me on that.

Last edited by RF on Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender

?

I gather from Wayne's post that it's me who doesn't understand and you were correct in your use of, "him", to refer to NT. My apologies. Seems I misread something (maybe everything).

The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender

?

I gather from Wayne's post that it's me who doesn't understand and you were correct in your use of, "him", to refer to NT. My apologies. Seems I misread something (maybe everything).

Being the sort of programmed pragmatic person I am I have saved a copy of the tirade thrown my way by NT. Some specific insults were directed my way and ones gender looks rather minuscule beside the post NT directed at me Sandra. Even the accusation that I was working for a large corporation (pharmaceutical company) was unchallenged by you and that I should be shut up was an issue. Maybe NT wanted you to send hit men after me for all I know. You only compounded the issue in the method you just used to berate (i don't think that word is unfair) but at least you apologized. Good start.

BTW...I take offense at your use of the word "denigrate". There was quite a flap awhile back here in the states that the term is offensive to black people. I have decided to agree with those that maintained that.

From dictionary.com:

Code:

den·i·grate 1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

How is this related to "black people"? I think you may have your words mixed up or I am not aware of how this is a racial slur.

BTW...I take offense at your use of the word "denigrate". There was quite a flap awhile back here in the states that the term is offensive to black people. I have decided to agree with those that maintained that.

From dictionary.com:

Code:

den·i·grate 1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame. 2. To disparage; belittle: The critics have denigrated our efforts.

How is this related to "black people"? I think you may have your words mixed up or I am not aware of how this is a racial slur.

-josh

I wasn't either. But I think it has something to do with the root of the word. You know, some people take offense at the use of the descriptive "black" when it is used in a negative manner.

During the 1660s and 1670s, Maryland and Virginia adopted laws specifically designed to denigrate blacks. These laws banned interracial marriages and sexual relations and deprived blacks of property. Other laws prohibited blacks from bearing arms or traveling without written permission. In 1669, Virginia became the first colony to declare that it was not a crime to kill an unruly slave in the ordinary course of punishment. That same year, Virginia also prohibited masters from freeing slaves unless the freedmen were deported from the colony. Virginia also voted to banish any white man or woman who married a black, mulatto, or Indian.

You just can't help yourself can you RF? The, "fragile", sensibilities of NT? This is just a somewhat more polite way of saying what Donnie said viz: all ARs are, "sooks": and an imposition of your views as to what NT's sensibilities should be. This is just par for the course.

Quote:

I don't even know what a "sook" is.

A, "sook", is a, "milk-sop", or, "cry-baby", a weak and feeble or infantile person: in a relevant case, it is a man with the supposedly, "fragile", (viz: contemptible) sensibilities of a woman and I believe we both know more vulgar terms of abuse tending in the same direction.

Quote:

And I used "fragile" as a description, and I believe it is accurate. I understand it is subjective. Just as subjective as "somewhat more polite".

I'm not objecting on the grounds that it is inaccurate but on the grounds specified above viz: that, in the context, it seemed deliberately contemptuous.

Quote:

Still, one would think you would view "somewhat more polite" as a step in the right direction, instead of an opportunity to berate me.

I do consider it a step in the right direction: I just couldn't resist the opportunity.

You just can't help yourself can you RF?

Quote:

Is this meant to imply that I suffer from a personality disorder? If so, I find it offensive.

No, it isn't meant to be taken literally. How should I know what you suffer from? It is an expression of irritation at what appears to be your continuation of the attack in this thread. I agree, however, I should have left it out.

Quote:

Do you know anyone who wouldn't be offended at your question? It could of course, be innocuous, that's the art of polite denigration isn't it? But the context makes the meaning clear. In any case, seeing that the only response to NT's earlier requests to adopt an acceptable form of address were greeted with yet more abuse and denigration s/he probably didn't see much point in responding.

Quote:

I didn't denigrate NT's earlier requests.

No, you didn't. Others did. An inflamed context was already established and your comments probably look worse in that context than they might have otherwise.

Quote:

I admitted to the snarky quotient of my post...but it certainly didn't include the use of "what".

I'm sure NT will be glad to know that the, "what", didn't carry the implication I placed on it. So am I. Thank you for the explanation.

Quote:

I wouldn't take offense at such a comment from an anonymous poster on a board...especially if I had already expended considerable bandwidth collectively and categorically denouncing that person.

I have not seen any posts by NT denouncing you.

Quote:

BTW...I take offense at your use of the word "denigrate". There was quite a flap awhile back here in the states that the term is offensive to black people.

What, because, "denigrate", is from the Latin, "nigere", "to blacken"? I don't think the European Black/White = Evil/Good dichotomy has anything to do with black people and I think it is, in any case, too deep in the European consciousness to eradicate. However, I suppose it may, in the past, have encouraged adverse attitudes towards black people and I'd be prepared to look for another word if a sufficient number of people are truly offended. Is this word now banned amongst the, "PC crowd", in America?

Quote:

I have decided to agree with those that maintained that

Really? May I ask when you made that decision? May I also ask why, if it truly offends you, you have yourself employed this word above when you said? "I didn't denigrate NT's earlier requests".

Quote:

The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender?

Quote:

I would rather use the equally valid "convention" to use the masculine pronoun when in doubt.

It is by no means equally valid. His/her s/he (or he/she) clearly expresses that there is doubt as to gender. The use of the masculine pronoun alone, obviously, expresses that there is no doubt and that the gender is masculine.

Quote:

After all, it was a convention for a lot longer, and so has the greater claim to actually being a convention.

It has no greater claim to being a convention. It simply has a claim to being a convention for a longer period of time. At the same time it has much less claim to either accuracy or courtesy. BTW it was not a literary convention to cover cases of doubt as to gender. It represented an institutionalized masculine conspiracy to treat the feminine as invisible; write women out of history, and out of consideration, and maintain masculine dominance.

Quote:

Besides...his gender ISN'T in doubt. You should read more closely. You seem to be making the error Phantomuk made when referring to NT as "her" .

I admit to being totally confused as to NT's gender (it did have something to do with the structure of NT's earlier posts) but I had thought that the upshot was that NT wanted his gender not to be assumed/specified. I was wrong. You were right.

Quote:

...righteously moving in judgment and betraying a lack of knowing the specifics

There was no, "righteously moving in judgment". My suggestion, that you were engaging in willful misunderstanding, was based on objective consideration of your other posts here and elsewhere. It turns out I was wrong: this time.

Quote:

Why should arc108 take personal offence RF? Are you calling arc a cockroach? This is so transparent. Of course, we have had, "night-crawler", so you are in good company.

You overlooked this question RF.

Quote:

NB: Arc108 objects to, "it", for animals and wants us to use gender specific pronouns in recognition of their (proposed) status as legal, "persons". It has nothing to do with anything personal to arc - as I am sure you know.

Indeed the word comes from the Latin root niger through theFrench usage of the 14th century meaning 'to blacken,' referring to reputation,(syn. to sully) and 'to darken' referring to ambiguating that which is clear.

Now granted, the scholar in this link doesn't accept the racial implication of the word. However, I have seen it argued that using terms such as "blacken" as synonymous with "to sully" is inherently racial, and even descends from racism. Therefore, the term "denigrate" is a racial term.

Sorry to put you through all this, if I did. If I may say in my broken unsophisticated English, I do admire your powerful insightful intellectual ability to see and present the truth.

I think you missed an entire thread "Out Of Order" in this Feed Back section posted few days ago and mysteriously disappearing. If possible could you please find from administration what happened to this thread. I would like to have a copy of this thread for personal use. Also; a lot of fighting went on at "To: AR/AL/AW: Good by" thread , which you it seems have also missed, during your short absence.

I am not going to participate at this board much longer as I said. Little time I have for this sort of thing I will spend at:
http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/There one doesn't have to prove that Earth is round and that animals should be treated with respect over and over every day. On the contrary
of what is been said here, there, I have noticed people do disagree a lot about many issues, but about meaningful and intelligent issues regarding AR, AL, AW and treat each other with respect and dignity. Here it seems most of "bandwidth" has been utilized to derail such arguments. In my opinion, not a very healthy place as it is now. Perhaps You can try to change it for the better.

Being the sort of programmed pragmatic person I am I have saved a copy of the tirade thrown my way by NT. Some specific insults were directed my way and ones gender looks rather minuscule beside the post NT directed at me Sandra. Even the accusation that I was working for a large corporation (pharmaceutical company) was unchallenged by you ...

Questions of gender can be far from minuscule and your prior post to NT was insultingly patronizing and provocative. Perhaps you really don't see that? All the rest of your concerns have has been covered in previous comments to NT or by deletions including, I seem to recall, that Wayne covered the reference to pharmaceutical companies.

Quote:

...and that I should be shut up was an issue.

Which was ignored. No-one shut you up and I have told NT that his formal request to have you banned is not appropriate. See above.

Quote:

Maybe NT wanted you to send hit men after me for all I know.

It is extremely unlikely that NT knew about my hit men. BTW, who told you?

Quote:

You only compounded the issue in the method you just used to berate (i don't think that word is unfair)

How compounded? So far, general remonstrances and requests for co-operation from Josh, Wayne and me, have had no effect. You and RF and others are even using this thread, where we are hoping to resolve the issue, as a forum for further antagonistic remarks. In any case it is my job, as a Moderator, to point out how I think someone is breaking the rules. I'm sorry if I sometimes fail to keep all sense of personal criticism out of my comments. I'm not saying I'm perfect but I certainly do try and you won't find much of that in what I say. At the same time, I find accusations of, "berating", a bit hard to take coming from you, Donnie, or from anyone else who consistently makes personal accusations and offensive personal remarks.

Quote:

but at least you apologized.

I apologized for assuming a willful error where no error in fact existed. Everything else stands.

Quote:

Good start

Good example of a patronizing comment.

BTW We are still waiting to hear your apology for so frequently disrupting posts with provocative and personally derogatory remarks.

Sorry to put you through all this, if I did. If I may say in my broken unsophisticated English, I do admire your powerful insightful intellectual ability to see and present the truth.

I think you missed an entire thread "Out Of Order" in this Feed Back section posted few days ago and mysteriously disappearing. If possible could you please find from administration what happened to this thread. I would like to have a copy of this thread for personal use. Also; a lot of fighting went on at "To: AR/AL/AW: Good by" thread , which you it seems have also missed, during your short absence.

I am not going to participate at this board much longer as I said. Little time I have for this sort of thing I will spend at: http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/There one doesn't have to prove that Earth is round and that animals should be treated with respect over and over every day. On the contrary of what is been said here, there, I have noticed people do disagree a lot on many issues, but about meaningful and intelligent issues regarding AR, AL, AW and treat each other with respect and dignity. Here it seems most of "bandwidth" has been utilized to derail such arguments. In my opinion, not a very healthy place as it is now. Perhaps You can try to change it for better.

Hi Sandra. Sorry me again.

I am going to try to send you a PM regarding the above mentioned thread.